Department for Transport

Great Western Railway Line

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the electrification of Thames Valley railways is likely to be completed on time and at the original cost; and if not, why not.

Baroness Kramer: I have been advised by Network Rail that work on the Thames Valley railways is progressing well and they are aiming for completion at the end of 2016. However, the programme is subject to change and alteration as the scope and needs of the overall project change.

Rolling Stock: Procurement

Lord Bradshaw: To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Kramer on 24 February (HL4951), whether, before delivery of the Intercity Express Programme, the operators will be able to specify the interior layouts to optimise their appeal to the passenger market.

Baroness Kramer: Train operators have already helped to specify the interior of the new Inter City Express trains. The Department for Transport, Hitachi and Agility Trains continue to work very closely with them.

Railways: Wales

Lord Berkeley: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to devolve responsibility for the Wales and Borders rail franchise to the Welsh Government; and how the interests of stakeholders and customers in England would be protected under such a change.

Baroness Kramer: The UK Government is proposing to devolve executive franchising functions to the Welsh Government, to enable them to lead on the procurement and management of the next Wales and Borders franchise. We continue to work with the Welsh Government on the details of the devolved franchise, including how cross-border routes are procured and managed. Cross-border routes are vital for passengers on both sides of the border; having sufficient safeguards in place to protect all cross-border rail users is extremely important. In order for the Secretary of State for Transport to ensure proper accountability, it is likely that services primarily serving English markets will be placed into other franchises for which the Secretary of State for Transport is the franchising authority. No final decision has been made at this stage on which services would be affected and specific proposals will be consulted on in due course as is normal practice. It should also be noted that any transfer of executive franchising functions to Welsh Ministers will be subject to parliamentary process in due course.

Department for Education

Schools: Vetting

Lord Lexden: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that both teachers and other members of staff in early and later years provision are not adversely affected by the current childcare disqualification regime which originally covered only child minders and day care providers.

Lord Nash: On 26 February we published ‘Disqualification under the Childcare Act 2006’ statutory guidance for schools: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/disqualification-under-the-childcare-act-2006.   This new guidance clarifies the circumstances in which the provisions of the Childcare (Disqualification) Regulations 2009 apply to school staff. It also supports schools to take appropriate action to ensure that school staff do not work in circumstances that are in breach of those Regulations. It makes clear that where staff are disqualified schools may redeploy them or make changes to their duties. This discretion allows many of those staff affected by the Regulations to continue to work in schools while an application is made to Ofsted for a waiver of disqualification. The childcare disqualification arrangements are not new and have never applied exclusively to child-minders and day care providers. They apply to all staff providing childcare, including in schools. These arrangements help to ensure that children in the most vulnerable age groups, those who are potentially at greatest risk, are protected regardless of the setting in which childcare is provided.In schools they prevent staff who have been cautioned or convicted for certain serious offences, from providing childcare: for children up to the age of five years before, during, or after school hours; andfor children aged up to eight years of age before and after school hours. School staff are also prevented from providing childcare if they reside in a household where another person who has been cautioned or convicted for such an offence lives or is employed.  The new statutory guidance replaces the Department’s earlier advice on this subject, published in October 2014 as a supplement to ‘Keeping children safe in education’, and is a direct response to requests for additional information to help schools make appropriate and robust decisions should these matters arise.   The guidance has been developed in consultation with a range of stakeholders who have expertise and experience in child safeguarding matters, including children’s safeguarding organisations, employer representative bodies, trade unions and local authorities.

Social Services: Privatisation

Baroness Donaghy: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether any local authorities have been instructed to privatise social work services; and if so, by which Department.

Lord Nash: No local authorities have been instructed to privatise social work. Where a local authority is judged to be failing in its provision and delivery of children’s services, the Secretary of State has a discretionary power to intervene under the Education Act 1996, as applied by section 50 of the Children Act 2004. This may include directing the local authority to review its children’s services operations and commissioning procedures, and this may include the delivery of specified functions by another body. The powers under Part 1 of the 2008 Children and Young Persons Act and associated regulations are quite different and provide for local authorities to delegate children’s social care functions to third parties on a voluntary basis. We have not instructed any local authorities to delegate their functions under these provisions.

University Technical Colleges

Baroness Wolf of Dulwich: To ask Her Majesty’s Government which university technical colleges were operating in the 2014–15 academic year; and how many year 10, 11, 12 and 13 pupils were (1) enrolled in each of them at the date of the October 2014 school census, and (2) included in the budget forecast return submitted by each college to the Education Funding Agency in June 2014.

Baroness Wolf of Dulwich: To ask Her Majesty’s Government which studio schools were operating in the 2014–15 academic year; and how many year 10, 11, 12 and 13 pupils were (1) enrolled in each of them at the date of the October 2014 school census, and (2) included in the budget forecast return submitted by each school to the Education Funding Agency in June 2014.

Lord Nash: Thirty university technical colleges (UTCs) and 37 studio schools are open in the 2014-15 academic year and listed in the attached table, with the exception of 4 studio schools that are schools within schools and do not have separate pupil census data.   The numbers of year 10, 11, 12 and 13 pupils enrolled in each institution at the date of the October 2014 school census are also in the table below, alongside the number of students each institution has been funded for. These ‘funded for’ numbers are only available at pre-16 and post-16 level. Where the funded number has been based on an estimate but the actual number of pupils on roll as per the October census is higher the school will receive additional funding later that year. Where the actual number is lower than the estimate the funding is re-paid to the Department in the following academic year.   Some UTC and studio schools also report pupils in year 9, 14 and X (pupils not assigned to a particular year group). These have been included for completeness. ‘Supp’ denotes supressed low pupil counts (of less than 3).   Most UTCs and studio schools that opened in September 2014 will have year 10 (or 9) and year 12 pupils only.  



Number of pupils at UTCs and studio schools Oct14
(Word Document, 121 KB)

University Technical Colleges

Baroness Wolf of Dulwich: To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many university technical colleges have closed since such colleges were established in 2010 or are expected to close or merge with other institutions.

Lord Nash: No university technical colleges (UTCs) have closed or merged with other institutions. One UTC will be closing in August 2015. The performance of open UTCs, as for all academies, is monitored on an ongoing basis and if there are significant concerns, the government will take appropriate action which could potentially include closure.

Studio Schools

Baroness Wolf of Dulwich: To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many studio schools have closed since such schools were established in 2010 or are expected to close or merge with other institutions.

Lord Nash: Four studio schools have closed since 2010 and one further studio school is due to close in August 2015. No studio schools have been merged or are expected to merge with other institutions. The performance of open studio schools, as for all academies, is monitored on an ongoing basis and if there are significant concerns, the government will take appropriate action which could potentially include closure.

Ministry of Justice

Prisoners: Voting Rights

Lord Norton of Louth: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they expect to publish their response to the report of the Joint Committee on the Draft Voting Eligibility (Prisoners) Bill (HL Paper 103, Session 2013–14) published in December 2013, before the end of the current Parliament.

Lord Faulks: The Secretary of State for Justice wrote to the Joint Committee on 25 February 2014, thanking them for their recommendations. Despite continued consideration of the issues it is clear that a consensus will not be reached in this Parliament given the strongly held views across both Houses. Therefore the Government will not introduce legislation on prisoner voting rights in this Parliament, so there is nothing further the Government can report to the Joint Committee at this stage.

Department for Work and Pensions

Employment and Support Allowance

The Countess of Mar: To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the written statement by Lord Freud on 27 November 2014 (HLWS32), when they plan to bring forward the measure to prevent claimants being paid the Employment Support Allowance assessment rate if they have already been found fit for work but have made a repeat claim, and what consideration they have given to the implications this will have for disabled people and those with fluctuating conditions.

The Countess of Mar: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the scoring for Work Capability Assessment applicants with mental health problems has been loaded to make it more difficult for women to qualify for the support group than it is for men; and, if so, why.

Lord Freud: The Regulations that implement the measure making changes to how repeat claims for Employment and Support Allowance are dealt with were laid before Parliament on 5th March. The Regulations can be found at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/id/uksi/2015/437. The criteria for eligibility for the support group in Employment and Support Allowance remains the same for men and women. The updated guidance for healthcare professionals on the assessment of risk in claimants with a Mental Health condition was developed with input from senior psychiatrists. It differentiates between men and women in relation to suicide risk because the suicide rate in men is significantly higher than in women. The guidance makes clear that the assessment of risk needs to focus both on the claimant’s health and whether the claimant could cope with work-related activity.

Personal Independence Payment

Lord Kinnock: To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many personal independence payments have been claimed since introduction; how many of those claims have been processed; and, of those, how many are being paid to recipients of the disability living allowance which preceded personal independence payments.

Lord Freud: The requested information is in the table below. These statistics are available from the Personal Independence Payment statistics home page and will next be updated on 18 March 2015.https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/personal-independence-payment-statistics Personal Independence Payment (PIP) claims registered, cleared and awards in payment – at 31 October 2014 All PIP claims registered, of which:669,200New claims592,900Reassessment Claims76,300All PIP claims cleared, of which:382,000 New claims352,100 Reassessment claims29,900All PIP awards in payment, of which:207,500 New Claims184,500 Reassessment claims23,000Notes:Source, DWP statistical release, published 17 December 2014 and Stat-Xplore.Figures are rounded to the nearest 100.Figures are for claims from people under the normal rules and special rules for those who are terminally ill.“Reassessment claims” are claims to PIP from those who were entitled to Disability Living Allowance.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

European Union

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what was the total cost of the Review of the Balance of Competences between the United Kingdom and the European Union to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and its associated agencies, broken down by (1) staff time, (2) printing costs, (3) running of engagement events, (4) witness expenses, (5) publicity of the reports, and (6) any and all other associated costs.

Lord De Mauley: An error has been identified in the written answer given on 23 February 2015.The correct answer should have been:

Defra was responsible for the following reports as part of the Balance of Competences Review:Animal Health and Welfare and Food Safety (which was produced jointly with the Food Standards Agency);Environment and Climate Change (which was produced jointly with DECC);Agriculture; andFisheries. 1) Staff costsThe cost of the Defra team which led on producing the four reports between 2012 and 2014 was approximately £500,000. The team drew on expert advice from staff across the Department. Providing a full breakdown of all staff time and costs would exceed the disproportionate cost threshold. 2) Printing costsDefra paid approximately £130,000 to print and publish the four reports. 3) Running engagement eventsEngagement events were held in Brussels, various locations in all parts of the UK, and at Defra’s London and York offices. The total cost of events, including refreshments and Defra staff travel, was approximately £4,000. To provide a full breakdown of staff time and costs would exceed the disproportionate cost threshold. 4) Witness expensesDefra did not incur any expenses for witnesses.5) PublicityDefra did not incur expenses for publicity of the reports. 6) All other associated costsThere were no other associated costs.

Lord De Mauley: Defra was responsible for the following reports as part of the Balance of Competences Review:Animal Health and Welfare and Food Safety (which was produced jointly with the Food Standards Agency);Environment and Climate Change (which was produced jointly with DECC);Agriculture; andFisheries. 1) Staff costsThe cost of the Defra team which led on producing the four reports between 2012 and 2014 was approximately £500,000. The team drew on expert advice from staff across the Department. Providing a full breakdown of all staff time and costs would exceed the disproportionate cost threshold. 2) Printing costsDefra paid approximately £130,000 to print and publish the four reports. 3) Running engagement eventsEngagement events were held in Brussels, various locations in all parts of the UK, and at Defra’s London and York offices. The total cost of events, including refreshments and Defra staff travel, was approximately £4,000. To provide a full breakdown of staff time and costs would exceed the disproportionate cost threshold. 4) Witness expensesDefra did not incur any expenses for witnesses.5) PublicityDefra did not incur expenses for publicity of the reports. 6) All other associated costsThere were no other associated costs.

Lake District National Park

Lord Greaves: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to ask the Lake District National Park Authority to defer the sale of any sites of land where an application has been made to register the site as an asset of community value for a sufficient length of time to allow the application to be determined.

Lord De Mauley: Central Government has no powers to require a National Parks Authority to sell or not to sell land. It would be inappropriate for it to interfere in such a process. Regardless of sale, the regulations require the responsible authority to make a decision on listing as an asset of community value within 8 weeks of nomination.

National Parks

Lord Greaves: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what powers they have to direct a National Park Authority to dispose or not to dispose of land or a particular piece of land.

Lord De Mauley: Her Majesty’s Government has no powers to direct a national park authority to dispose or not to dispose of land or a particular piece of land.

Lake District National Park

Lord Greaves: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what consultation took place with (1) local authorities, (2) local voluntary bodies, (3) other local bodies involved with amenity and tourism, and (4) national voluntary and campaigning bodies concerned with National Parks, outdoor activities and access, before taking the decision to advertise for sale land at Stickle Tarn (Great Langdale), Yewbarrow Woods (Longsleddale), Blue Hill and Red Bank Wood, Blea Brows (Coniston Water), Lady Wood (White Moss), Banerigg Wood (White Moss), and the amenity land with river frontage at Portinscale.

Lord De Mauley: National park authorities are independent bodies provided with the power, under the 1972 Local Government Act, to dispose of land. The Government has no role in consultation on disposal decisions.   The Lake District National Park Authority has voluntarily provided information regarding the consultation they have undertaken, including liaison with parish councils, public notices advertising their intention to invite offers for some properties and direct consultation with a number of neighbouring landowners and strategic partners.   The Authority has committed to continue to consult and respond to any queries and concerns they receive throughout the formal tender process.

Lake District National Park

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to bring before Parliament current proposals by the Lake District National Park Authority to sell land in the Lake District.

Lord De Mauley: National park authorities are independent bodies, provided with their powers to dispose of land under the 1972 Local Government Act. Government has no powers to direct a national park authority to dispose or not to dispose of land or a particular piece of land and has no plans to bring before Parliament the Lake District National Park Authority proposals for land sale.

National Parks

Lord Judd: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they plan to make their decision on the future boundaries of the Lake District and West Yorkshire national parks before the forthcoming general election.

Lord De Mauley: Following the public enquiry into Natural England’s proposals to extend the boundaries of the Lake District and Yorkshire Dales National Parks, the inspector’s report has been submitted to Defra and is now being considered. The Secretary of State will issue her decisions in due course.

Department for Communities and Local Government

Parks: Sales

Lord Storey: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what role they take in respect of the sale of local park land by councils; and whether the requirements in the Localism Act 2011 enable such sales to be prevented.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Department has no specific role in relation to council-owned park land. My answer of 29 January 2015, HL4224, outlined the broader legal framework for the disposal of property assets by local authorities. The sale of park land is not something we have encouraged – rather, councils should be disposing of brownfield land and redundant buildings. The Localism Act 2011 has introduced a Community Right to Bid, and parks and green spaces are good examples of sites that could be nominated as an asset of community value. This Government has also introduced a new local planning designation for local green spaces. This could be designated by a local planning authority in its Local Plan or by a local neighbourhood through a neighbourhood plan. This could include park land. Of course, local elections provide a mechanism for decisions and policies of councils to be challenged by local residents.

HM Treasury

LIBOR

Lord Robertson of Port Ellen: To ask Her Majesty’s Government how much was received by HM Treasury from the banks in penalties for the manipulation of Libor.

Lord Robertson of Port Ellen: To ask Her Majesty’s Government how much of the money received in penalties for the manipulation of Libor has been distributed to charities.

Lord Robertson of Port Ellen: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are the names of those people and organisations represented on the Advisory Board in respect of the money received in penalties for the manipulation of Libor.

Lord Robertson of Port Ellen: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether all money received in penalties for the manipulation of Libor is subject to the advice of the Advisory Board appointed by HM Treasury; and if not, what is the amount distributed outwith the recommendations.

Lord Deighton: Since June 2012, the Treasury has received LIBOR fines from the FCA; to date, they have imposed total fines in excess of £450 million relating to its investigations of LIBOR manipulation. This Government promised that this policy would reflect that those who have paid fines in our financial sector, because they demonstrated the very worst of British values, are paying to support those in our Armed Forces and emergency services who demonstrate the very best of British values. We are working with OGDs and relevant charities to ensure that all LIBOR fines received to date will be committed within the life of this Parliament.   The administration of LIBOR fines varies according to the type of organisation applying and receiving the money. In particular, where a Government Department, such as the MoD has been identified as the organisation best suited to deliver the outcome – for example, support for childcare at military establishments – normal Departmental processes have applied. In other circumstances – such as those in support of the Armed Forces Covenant, the Covenant Reference Group – a cross-Whitehall representative body which includes charity representation, provides the guidance on those areas where LIBOR funds could be used to best effect.

Inheritance Tax

Lord Campbell-Savours: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what estimate they have made of the gain to the Exchequer of ending relief against tax to gifts made up to seven years prior to death.

Lord Deighton: HM Revenue and Customs’ (HMRC’s) most recent estimate of the cost to the Exchequer of providing Taper Relief on transfers made between three and seven years before death was that this relief cost £25 million in 2013-14 and will cost £25 million in 2014-15[1].[1] This information was published in December 2014 at:https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/389545/20141231_minorallowances_reliefs_v0.4.pdf

Public Sector: Pay

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Deighton on 24 February (HL4914) concerning public sector pay, whether they plan to revert to free collective bargaining in the public sector after 2015–16; and if not, why not.

Lord Deighton: Pay awards in the main public sector workforces are set following recommendations made by independent Pay Review Bodies to the government. The Pay Review Bodies take written and oral evidence from the government, employers and trade unions in making their recommendations on pay.   The Review Bodies operate in the public interest by offering a transparent, independent mechanism to inform pay setting for key workforces in the public sector. All parties can put forward their views on pay and independent recommendations are then publicly offered to government.   Different mechanisms are always possible, and have been used in the past, but the Review Body system has proved its value over decades in balancing the interests of all the different parties – notably workforce, employers and government – for workforces where there is a strong and continuing public interest in the outcomes.

Department for Energy and Climate Change

Natural Gas: Russia

Lord Empey: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what proportion of natural gas currently being consumed in the United Kingdom is sourced from Russia.

Baroness Verma: The United Kingdom does not physically import any gas directly from Russia. A small amount of Russian gas may be imported through our interconnector pipelines with the Netherlands and Belgium, which amounts to around 1% of the United Kingdom’s demand.

Natural Gas: Russia

Lord Empey: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what contingency arrangements are in place to secure natural gas supplies in the event of a termination of supplies coming from Russia.

Baroness Verma: Our Stress Test that we concluded as part of an EU-wide exercise found that the UK has a robust market which is likely to cope with a range of scenarios involving disruptions to Russian gas supplies, including the very unlikely and extreme case of full Russian disruption and severe winter weather. This is thanks largely to the UK’s robust gas market, a diverse range of gas supply options and extensive gas supply infrastructure. This includes domestic production, supply pipelines from Norway, Belgium and the Netherlands, liquefied natural gas terminals which can import gas from world markets and storage facilities.

Natural Gas: Russia

Lord Empey: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with other European governments to secure natural gas supplies to Western Europe.

Baroness Verma: During the Commission exercise on stress tests last summer when all Member States were asked to consider the impact of one and six month winter disruptions of Russian gas to the EU under two scenarios (total cessation of Russian gas supplies by all routes and cessation of all transit gas to the EU via Ukraine), the UK had detailed discussions with immediate neighbours, including with Belgium and the Netherlands, on security of supply assumptions and preparedness. Those discussions confirmed general alignment as regards our respective security of supply positions and relative demand, supply and import profile assumptions, including any impact on possible flows through the interconnectors. Indeed the Commission stress test analysis last Autumn on the pan-European situation acknowledged the relative robustness of western states to a disruption given its diversity of supply sources and routes and the efficient functioning of the liberalised western and north western markets, which are more liquid and price responsive than other regions of the EU.Notwithstanding this there is a need for strengthened co-operation amongst all Member States to increase resilience throughout the EU and to urgently reduce dependence of some Member States on a single or major third country supplier, particularly in the South East and Baltic regions. We strongly support the Commission taking an active role in those regions to help achieve that. Security of supply is a key priority of the Energy Union, which the UK endorses.The UK has also been very actively engaged in supporting the process for selecting Projects of Common Interest (PCIs) whereby key cross-border infrastructure projects are accorded PCI status and can benefit from streamlined ‘one stop shop’ planning regimes, regulatory certainty for higher risk projects, a mechanism for agreeing cross-border cost allocations for projects and possible funding from the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF).Increased interconnection and the supply diversity that it will facilitate, together with a sustained push to ensure full implementation of the internal market legislation and co-operation on a regional basis in emergencies will enhance security of supply for all Member States. Strong energy efficiency and demand reduction measures and increased use of indigenous low carbon energy resources are also essential and will play a key part in the drive for a secure Energy Union.

Natural Gas: Russia

Lord Empey: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what proportion of the United Kingdom's natural gas supplies have originated from Russia in the last three years for which figures are available.

Baroness Verma: The physical origins of the gas that the United Kingdom receives through the two interconnector pipelines to the Continent are not known as gas can be traded between production at source and final consumption. Due to the interconnectedness of the European gas system, it is possible that some gas produced in Russia ultimately arrives in the United Kingdom. We estimate that these are small volumes, around 1 percent of total supply.

Natural Gas: Storage

Lord Empey: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they consider that natural gas storage capacity is sufficient to ensure energy security in the United Kingdom.

Baroness Verma: Gas storage is an important aspect of our energy security, but it is only one part of the overall gas infrastructure picture. Our security lies in diversity of sources and routes and the UK has significant levels of domestic production; pipelines to Norway, the Netherlands, and Belgium; four liquefied natural gas terminals connecting us to global markets; and eight gas storage sites with two more currently under construction.Within the context of this overall diversity of infrastructure, we consider the current levels of gas storage to be sufficient for energy security. We recognise the potential cost implications of intervention and so have a market-led approach to investment in this country and if there is need the market will respond, as it has done with new sites at both Hill Top Farm and Stublach in Cheshire.

Radioactive Waste

Lord Hunt of Chesterton: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have for storing or transforming the United Kingdom's stockpile of highly reactive nuclear waste, including plutonium; what is the timetable for those plans; and whether those plans involve collaboration with European countries and agencies.

Baroness Verma: The majority of high activity radioactive wastes are unsuitable for disposal at existing waste management facilities. The Government’s policy is for these wastes to be stored safely and securely until a suitable disposal facility is available. The Government’s policy, following the recommendations of the independent Committee on Radioactive Waste Management in 2006, is to manage these wastes in the longer term through geological disposal.On 24 July 2014 the Government published a White Paper setting out a revised plan to implement geological disposal. The Government has listened to the public and will work with communities and experts to address people’s concerns on issues like the planning process and environmental impacts. There is no fixed timetable for delivering a geological disposal facility. The Government understands that a community that engages in the site selection process will want to progress at a pace acceptable to them, not one imposed by Government.Geological disposal is internationally recognised as the safest and most secure way of dealing with radioactive waste on a long-term basis.Radioactive Waste Management Ltd (RWM), as the developer for geological disposal, has bilateral agreements with various international organisations. RWM engage at a high level with: the International Atomic Energy Agency; the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development/Nuclear Energy Agency; and the European Commission. RWM also take part in relevant internationally coordinated joint research and development, working groups and other collaborative mechanisms.All options for plutonium management require further work to be carried out to better understand their technical and commercial details. DECC asked the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) to undertake this work with the technology suppliers with the aim of establishing a consistent level of understanding of each option. DECC expects that NDA will provide this advice in Spring 2015. The report will give a view on the balance of attractiveness and risk for each option, which will enable DECC to consider options for the way forward.

Northern Ireland Office

Northern Ireland Government

Lord Laird: To ask Her Majesty’s Government which strand talk sessions representatives of the government of the Republic of Ireland attended in the course of the Stormont House talks; on what dates those sessions occurred; and at whose invitation they were included.

Baroness Randerson: I have nothing to add to my previous replies of 19 January (HL3949), 27 January (HL4283), 4 February (HL4532), 12 February (HL4726) and 2 March (HL5201 & HL5202) to the Noble Lord.

Department of Health

In Vitro Fertilisation

Lord Alton of Liverpool: To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Earl Howe on 24 February (HL4890), whether it was Professor Grifo with whom a member of the Expert Panel convened by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) had corresponded; and whether a copy of the correspondence that was shared with other members of the HFEA’s Expert Panel in September 2014 was provided to anyone who was not concurrently a member of either the HFEA or its Expert Panel.

Earl Howe: I have nothing further to add to the answers given previously on the subject of the published abstract of the Zhang research group.

NHS: Private Sector

Lord Hughes of Woodside: To ask Her Majesty’s Government how much was paid by NHS England to private health providers for treatments for National Health Service patients in each of the last five years; and how those figures compare to costs in (1) Scotland, (2) Wales, and (3) Northern Ireland.

Earl Howe: Commissioner spending on private providers for NHS health care services in each of the last five years is outlined in the table below: YearSpend (£ million)2009-104,1442010-114,7572011-125,3202012-135,6692013-146,390 For financial years 2009-10 to 2012-13, this covers spending by Primary Care Trusts. For financial year 2013-14, this covers spending by NHS England and local clinical commissioning groups, over which NHS England has financial oversight.   The Department only holds information on spending on NHS services in England, as health is a devolved matter.